Posted on 06/20/2005 8:18:29 PM PDT by 26lemoncharlie
Why is there resistance to securing America's borders?
It can be done.
We all know it can be done.
But yet there is still resistance to this idea in Washington.
When you hear excuses about militarizing the border, understand they are being uttered by people who, for whatever reason, do not want to secure the border.
The crisis with Mexico has reached new heights. The Mexican military itself has been forced to put troops in the town of Nuevo Laredo in response to efforts by the drug cartels to take control. The new police chief of the town was murdered hours after being sworn in. More than 500 people have been killed in drug-related murders in the border area since January. The illegal invasion of our country continues.
Yet, last week, Newt Gingrich, a likely Republican candidate for president in 2008 who has characterized the border situation as "absurd," said he would oppose using troops. Instead, he said, he would favor dramatically expanding the Border Patrol.
Indeed, the Border Patrol must be expanded dramatically. But that takes time. It will likely take years for us to train enough Border Patrol agents to do the job effectively. In the meantime, our national security is threatened.
There is no other option for us than to use the military.
The border needs to be secured now. Then we can examine the best options for demilitarization – technology, security fences, increased Border Patrol presence.
The Minutemen showed us it is possible to secure a significant stretch of the border with civilian volunteers. If civilians can do the job on a 23-mile stretch of the Arizona-Mexico border, there is no question the military can do the job.
The military has aircraft, it has high-tech equipment and it has manpower.
Some suggest the job is not appropriate for the military. I would submit defending the nation's borders is the most important and appropriate mission of the U.S. military.
The primary goal of the military should be defending the homeland – not projecting force around the world.
There are times when the projection of military force around the world is necessary for our national security, but not at the expense of leaving the homeland defenseless.
We don't have much time left.
Every day we leave our borders unguarded is another day we risk a major terrorist strike inside our country. We are literally inviting an attack bigger and more devastating than Sept. 11.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to hear about Social Security reform or any other priority from this administration until I hear the plan for securing our border right now. Social Security reform is not possible if millions continue to enter our country illegally. Social Security reform will be meaningless if nuclear-armed terrorists enter out country and destroy a major city. Social Security reform will not be the legacy of this administration if the very character of our country is transformed by uncontrolled immigration.
The time for excuses is over.
The American people have had it.
Illegal immigration is no longer just a regional issue in America, it affects every community in the nation
We will not be able to solve any other problem – from health care to energy to crime – without addressing the border. In fact, all of our other problems will only be magnified until we stop the invasion.
There is no other way, in the short term, besides mobilizing the military.
A political leader who embraces this crisis and lays out a simple plan of action for the American people will quickly become the most popular political figure in the nation.
Who is going to rise to the occasion?
So. Who exactly do all those apply to if not illlegal invaders?
http://www.llrx.com/features/posse.htm
Long article but explains why. It is illegal. The Posse Comitatus Act 1878 makes it so.
I am retired military and if you want the military to start practicing law enforcement in the US, then you are inviting the very things that led to the Magna Carta and which established the rational of keeping the military to fight wars, not keep law. We are not at war with Mexico. You can (and Congress has) made exceptions to the law, but is is dangerous. In essence, the Armed Forces, because they report directly to the President, could be his personal law enforcement agency in the US.
Not our problem. Illegals entering this country from Mexico are and we can only take action in the US.
Secondly it is unfair to burden the American taxpayer with the longterm cost of a problem that originates outside our country.
Perhaps your most ridiculous and illogical point. I'm guessing you think that illegals don't burden the taxpayer by being here in this country? The problem IS here and we cannot ignore it.
And lastly, it only makes us more vulnerable as the two points most likely to suffer an attack by terrorists using WMD's are directly across the border from San Diego, California and El Paso, Texas, and putting more people in harms way would only help assure the damage inflicted on our civilian and military population is catastrophic.
??What?? So, you acknowledge there is a legitimate weakness in our border where WMD's can cross over, but because attempting to stop them might cause casualtys you are against trying to secure those areas....do you think the WMD's we let come into the US will become planters on some sleeper cell's front porch? I take back my assessment of your second "point." Point number three is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard on FR.
This doesn't end until there is major change in Mexico, and they are not capable of making the necessary changes themselves.
Not our problem other than the illegals they are forcing over here. Unless you are advocating waging war on Mexico we cannot be part of the solution to Mexico's coruption. That doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to what Mexico's corruption is doing to this country. And putting troops on our border is a damn sight better use of the Military than putting out brush fires all over the world - we are not the World's police force, regardless of what the Clinton's would have you believe.
I respectfully disagree rebel.
The military is successful at security - of its own and of others. NK/SK border is a prime example.
At first glance it would appear that the Posse Comitatus Act 1878 embodies the principle of the separation of the military from civilian law enforcement, a principle that has been an essential component of Anglo-American legal history since the Magna Carta. However, it is interesting to note that no one has ever been convicted of violating 18 USC 1385, and when needed Congress has been quick to create statutory exceptions as permitted by the Act. The Act has therefore succeeded in putting forth an ideal, but has fallen woefully short in creating a practical, legal impediment to the use of the military for civil law enforcement. It could even be argued that the Act has only served to legitimize the military role of a posse comitatus by providing Congress with the ability to create its own exceptions whenever the need arises. It will be interesting to see whether the Act continues to receive heightened attention over the next few years, and whether demands for amendments to and/or repeal of the Act are raised.
I could quote other portions, but the author sums it up nicely. The act is no impediment to putting the military on the border to close the border. Closing the border doesn't involve enforcing state law...and if congress and the President wanted to, they could put the military there in such a way as to avoid any PC issues - by passing a law that says they can be there.
There is no more INS.
I'm totally on board with Farah on this issue. If it takes deployment of the military or the National Guard, so be it.
Maybe some new blood is needed in DC, since GW has his head in the sand. Tancredo in '08 is really starting to sound good.
Remember, the army also takes prisoners.
One of the first things that need to be done to remedy this problem is to turn the Border Patrol back into the paramilitary unit it is supposed to be instead of a high priced, politcally correct welfare program. Border Patrol Agents should have the descretion to drive illegal aliens immediately to the border and force them back into Mexico rather than spend hours at the station processing. This would allow agents to stay in the field rather than do rediculously tedious paper work that means absolutely nothing anyway. In addition, the taxpayer would save money on the deportation of OTM's.
Agents should be allowed to ram, or PIT load vehicles and if necesary shoot to disable the vehicle. These few items would do wonders for enforcement.
No more PC Border Patrol, and to accomplish that we need to completely discredit liberalism even if that upsets alot of "respectable" conservatives.
Compared to the 8 BILLION net dollars PER YEAR in costs in CALIFORNIA ALONE, the cost to man the border is trivial.
Border Patrol Agents should have the descretion (sic) to drive illegal aliens immediately to the border and force them back into Mexico rather than spend hours at the station processing.
See any inconsistency here?
Something my brother told me struck me as profound. The trouble with putting the military on the border, is that bullets go both ways...
I heard that and kind of changed my mind on use of the military. Possibly, use them to secure the border, and get a well trained border patrol to take over from there.
Another thing that strikes me as being quite weird, is that we hire border patrol, and they are used as the military and sent overseas to patrol foreign borders. Yet we refuse to protect our own.
Farah is correct.
Put the Navy on the border. lol
You act as though the killing of an illegal alien is something that is not acceptable. Look around the world, it is acceptable!!!
The bigger and best solution is to build a Double Concrete Wall,topped with chain link and faced with razor wire, with controll points for entry and exit.
In this way the killing would be unnecessary and may not involve people looking for work, but smugglers.
In any event killing illegal aliens is not th eprimary objective. Keeping our borders secure is. If some get killed, they have been warned, and place themselves in jeapordy and their lives at risk.
I agree with your points to a point.
West's post regarding posse commitatus points out that the very law which prevents using the military to enforce civil/criminal law allows for legislatively created exceptions. So there really is no legal impediment to using the military to secure our borders.
From a semantic point of view, if the border is secured via a wall/fence which the military guards, an unauthorized entry is at the same time a state, federal and military matter that actually begins (mens rea - intent to enter illegally and actus reas - taking a substantial step [no pun intended] to accomplish the crime by touching the fence/wall or attempting to dig under, etc..) outside the United States. Therefore it is both a military issue and a state/federal law issue.
Either the military, the feds or the state would have legal jurisdiction to address the issue - once a barrier was erected - without actually changing the law or adding a new one. We could still do just that to be on the safe side, but a reading of the law cited doesn't come close to showing that deploying the military on the border to keep it closed is a violation of posse commitatus - since the law doesn't prevent deploying the military inside the US...it only prevents using the military to enforce state and federal criminal law.
Mexico encourages its people to invade our country and violate our laws. I say it is an act of war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.